Using illness to promote politics...

[Swift]

This is just pitiful.

http://www.bencardin.com/multimedia/video102306

This ad is also running in Minnesota and Missouri.


This is just so weak and pitiful. Honestly, it seems like a pretty desperate act to me.

What do you think?

 

[Danoff]

I think it's legit. Stem cell research limitations are part of the republican platform. It's fine to campaign against that. It's a little dramatic to do what they did, and try to get people to make an emotional decision rather than an informed one... but it's not like the republicans aren't guilty of doing the same thing with pictures of aborted fetuses.

Not exactly the most intellectual approach, but a legitimate criticism.

 

[Deathclown66]

It is sad. It's low, it's dirty, and It's shameless.
I say that and I'm in support of stem-cell research.
Just to make sure, I can't remember exactly where they get stem-cells from, but doesn't Bush consider it essentially the same as abortion?

 

[Swift]

I think it's legit. Stem cell research limitations are part of the republican platform. It's fine to campaign against that. It's a little dramatic to do what they did, and try to get people to make an emotional decision rather than an informed one... but it's not like the republicans aren't guilty of doing the same thing with pictures of aborted fetuses.

Not exactly the most intellectual approach, but a legitimate criticism.

See, now I would agree with you except for two things.

1. Ben cardin voted AGAINST a stem cell bill just to make a political statement.
2. STeele is for stem cell research just not embryonic stem cell research(like almost all republicans)

 

[Pupik]

Just to make sure, I can't remember exactly where they get stem-cells from, but doesn't Bush consider it essentially the same as abortion?

Work has begun on getting using cells from the umbilical cord blood or cells from the umbilical cord itself. Since it's cut and discarded in just about every culture, it's hard to find anyone who's morally offended by using that for research.

One hitch, it's not a fully developed science at this time. But firms are trying to get you to pay to store it for future use, and health insurance companies aren't so sure they want to "invest" in it yet.

I'm curious how much grant money has come from government sources/taxes versus private sector funds, towards the research of stem cells. Something tells me it's probably a comparative drop in the bucket, but it seems to be a good rallying cry for both of the major partys, anyhow.

 

[Danoff]

See, now I would agree with you except for two things.

1. Ben cardin voted AGAINST a stem cell bill just to make a political statement.
2. STeele is for stem cell research just not embryonic stem cell research(like almost all republicans)

Did he vote against spending money on it? Or did he vote against a bill that protects it's legality (which almost doesn't even make sense)?

Also, when I said "stem cell" research above, I was referring to the controversial stem cell research... not the stuff eveyone is on board with.

 

[Solid Fro]

Why isn't MJF taking his medications? Oh, yes, to give it a "dramatic" effect.

Silly me.

 

[vladimir]

pharmaceutical companies use illnesses to make a profit.


i think that if politicians have an influence in curing illnesses then they do have the right to advertise it.

 

[FoolKiller]

pharmaceutical companies use illnesses to make a profit.

There is a difference between asking for payment in return for working at curing/treating disease and putting a guy who can't completely control his muscular functions on TV without his meds and trying to make it sound like the opposing politician would like to make him stay that way.

That said, I agree with danoff. They were overly dramatic with this add, but it isn't as if they took kids that had no clue what they were doing and stuck them on TV. My only question is: Is MJF a resident of MD?

i think that if politicians have an influence in curing illnesses then they do have the right to advertise it.

I bet you think they control gas prices too.

The most a politician can do is provide government funding. Unfortunately there are too many "scientists" pushing for more funding with sketchy reults at best and that money is wasted on useless endeavors. Plus, politicians try too hard to get more money to their home state without being concerned with the results. They probably waste more money than they manage to use in influencing curing anything. I have a lot of hope for stem cells but I have yet to see anything that suggests to me that we should be dumping tons of money into it.

 

[Slick Rick]

I saw this in the news today. They showed Michael J. Fox walking around and in a conference he wasnt that bad and then they showed that tv add and it seemed SO exaggerated.
Very shameful.

 

[FoolKiller]

I saw this in the news today. They showed Michael J. Fox walking around and in a conference he wasnt that bad and then they showed that tv add and it seemed SO exaggerated.
Very shameful.

It's not exaggerated, it is just what it is like without his medicine. With his medicine he just looks like he's got an itch somewhere.

 

[vladimir]

There is a difference between asking for payment in return for working at curing/treating disease and putting a guy who can't completely control his muscular functions on TV without his meds and trying to make it sound like the opposing politician would like to make him stay that way.

i did not get the impression that the opposing party would like him to stay that way, i just got the impression that the opposing party limited research into the matter.

of course its a bit dramatic, but its an ad after all.

I bet you think they control gas prices too.

matter of fact, they do. or why is gas twice as expensive in germany than in the US?

they don't control it directly, but they can put taxes on top of it. that is why i used the word influence, not control.

The most a politician can do is provide government funding. Unfortunately there are too many "scientists" pushing for more funding with sketchy reults at best and that money is wasted on useless endeavors. Plus, politicians try too hard to get more money to their home state without being concerned with the results. They probably waste more money than they manage to use in influencing curing anything. I have a lot of hope for stem cells but I have yet to see anything that suggests to me that we should be dumping tons of money into it.

these kinds of concerns are understandable. from the recent debate however, i was under the impression that cost was not so much an issue as some moral values. and if someone opposed stem cell research per se, no progress in this area would change his mind.

 

[Swift]

Did he vote against spending money on it? Or did he vote against a bill that protects it's legality (which almost doesn't even make sense)?

He voted against the bill soley because he new it would pass but he wanted to make a political statement about embrionic stem cell research that the bill did not allow.

Also, when I said "stem cell" research above, I was referring to the controversial stem cell research... not the stuff eveyone is on board with.

That's cool. I was just clearifying my earlier point.

i did not get the impression that the opposing party would like him to stay that way, i just got the impression that the opposing party limited research into the matter.

of course its a bit dramatic, but its an ad after all.


these kinds of concerns are understandable. from the recent debate however, i was under the impression that cost was not so much an issue as some moral values. and if someone opposed stem cell research per se, no progress in this area would change his mind.

Here's my problem with the ad. It's a lie. Michael J Fox doesn't know Ben Cardin from Adam. If he did, he would've looked at his record and seen that he actually voted against the research that he's promoting in the ad. Then he condems Michael Steele for wanted to criminalize stem cell research. He wants to do nothing of the kind. Basically, it's a huge smoke screen and as Danoff said, everyone is for stem cell research that comes from adults or embilical blood. That's not the issue, the issue is aborted fetus stem cells. But they don't say that at all.

Take a look at his record. here

If Michael J Fox wants to do an ad supporting a candidate he likes that's his business. But the sheer fact of the matter is that he's supporting the wrong andidate in this particular case

 

[Danoff]

He voted against the bill soley because he new it would pass but he wanted to make a political statement about embrionic stem cell research that the bill did not allow.

What's wrong with voting against a bill on the grounds that it prevents research?

Here's my problem with the ad. It's a lie.

I thought your problem with the ad was that it used illness to promote politics.

 

[OZZYGT]

I agree with Swift. Why? Because Michael J Fox happens to be...an actor 💡, and despite the fact that he does has Parkinson's disease, his whole approach to the point was completely goofy.







Ciao!

 

[Swift]

What's wrong with voting against a bill on the grounds that it prevents research?

The fact that he was using it for a political statement not so much a vote since it was an overwhelming supported bill. over 300 in the house and it got a unnanomous approval in the Senate.

He knew it was going to pass but wanted to try to get on the side of the abortion crowd with his vote.

I thought your problem with the ad was that it used illness to promote politics.

My problem with MJF's apparence is that he's using his illness to promote politics in a way that he isn't normally.

My problem with Ben Cardin and the democratic party in general(in this particular case) is that it's totally exploiting MJF and didn't give him the entire story about either Steele or the other candidate in Missouri.

 

[Danoff]

The fact that he was using it for a political statement not so much a vote since it was an overwhelming supported bill. over 300 in the house and it got a unnanomous approval in the Senate.

He knew it was going to pass but wanted to try to get on the side of the abortion crowd with his vote.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. You're telling me that there was legislation that was supported, but it made some sort of stem cell research illegal? and so he didn't support it? I wouldn't have either.

My problem with MJF's apparence is that he's using his illness to promote politics in a way that he isn't normally.

On the one hand, I don't mind them reminding folks that it's an important issue. On the otherhand, I don't like that they're trying to get people to make a decision based on an emotional response to imagery (previously the domain of right wingers in the abortion debate).

The issue is really whether they're trying to get people to make a decision on the issue based on the imagery, or if they're simply trying to use the imagery to instill a sense of urgency in people who have already made up their minds.

I think in this case they're actually trying to get people to decide on the issue based on seeing MJF - which is sad, but no worse than republicans have been at for years.

 

[Swift]

I don't understand what you're getting at here. You're telling me that there was legislation that was supported, but it made some sort of stem cell research illegal? and so he didn't support it? I wouldn't have either.

But, that bill enabled funding for other types of stem cell research. Just not embryonic stem cell research. So, he opposed it because it wasn't an all encomapssing bill. That while it may sound based on principal, was not. It was a statement to get him in good with the pro-abortion crowd.

 

[Danoff]

But, that bill enabled funding for other types of stem cell research. Just not embryonic stem cell research. So, he opposed it because it wasn't an all encomapssing bill. That while it may sound based on principal, was not. It was a statement to get him in good with the pro-abortion crowd.

Ok, well it sounds to me like a good vote. I don't want federal funding for stem cell research either, and I wouldn't want restrictions on it. I think both of those sound like good reasons to vote "no".


Edit: I think we're getting mixed up here. I'm guessing that there was some sort of bill that providing funding for stem cell research but didn't provide FUNDING for embryonic stem cell research. Everybody wanted the funding for stem cell research, but he voted no to protest the fact that it didn't cover all types of stem cells? If that were true I'd think he was an idiot. It would have been the right vote, but for the wrong reasons. Instead he should vote "no" because the government doesn't need to spend money on it since private companies are on it already.

I couldn't find this vote in the record you provided.

 

[FoolKiller]

i did not get the impression that the opposing party would like him to stay that way, i just got the impression that the opposing party limited research into the matter.

Yeah, I think I worded that wrong. The point I was trying to get across is that the ad falsely shows how he is living and gives the message that they are opposed to doing what it would take to fix that for their own political/moral reasons.

It would be like me not taking my medication for congestive heart failure and then filming an ad while sweating and bloated from the heart and kidney failure. The truth is that my current condition is that I just get tired easy and appear healthy to the average person.

matter of fact, they do. or why is gas twice as expensive in germany than in the US?

Once again I used the wrong wording. Oil prices. Politicians can affect the gas prices at the pump with taxes, but teh constant oil price fluctuations that are the cause of everyone's complainst are actually due to the commodities market and can barely be affected by a politician.

these kinds of concerns are understandable. from the recent debate however, i was under the impression that cost was not so much an issue as some moral values. and if someone opposed stem cell research per se, no progress in this area would change his mind.

From what Swift is saying it was a bill about funding. Of course, politicians turn it into a moral issue by claiming that it is either immoral to encourage abortions or immoral to refuse to fund research that could cure neurological diseases.

 

[vladimir]

Yeah, I think I worded that wrong. The point I was trying to get across is that the ad falsely shows how he is living and gives the message that they are opposed to doing what it would take to fix that for their own political/moral reasons.

It would be like me not taking my medication for congestive heart failure and then filming an ad while sweating and bloated from the heart and kidney failure. The truth is that my current condition is that I just get tired easy and appear healthy to the average person.

as far as the stem cell research question goes, the ad is right, or is it not?

as for the rest, true. thats why i ignore the vast majority of advertisements. there have been far more cases in which an ad has had a negative influence on me than ones in which an ad aroused any interest.

Once again I used the wrong wording. Oil prices. Politicians can affect the gas prices at the pump with taxes, but teh constant oil price fluctuations that are the cause of everyone's complainst are actually due to the commodities market and can barely be affected by a politician.

sure (although one could say that as the opec members are nations, the decisions are being made by politicians.)

but in the same way that politicians influence the gas price (which is ultimately more interesting to the consumer than the oil price), they can also indirectly influence stem cell research. why should politicians then not advertise it? they also advertise it if they want to improve education or provide welfare for families, so they can just as well advertise their position on stem cell research.

 

[ledhed]

I say its legit. He has the disease and its in his best interest to campaign for who he thinks gives him the best chance to live. Its his choice and his right as an American .

The other side gets to rebut him .

 

[Touring Mars]

Same here, I don't see the problem with it.... he's highlighting the potential cost of outlawing essential scientific research that has a direct impact on millions of people who are and will suffer from Parkinson's and a variety of other diseases for which, currently, there is no cure.

The accusation (made by Rush Limbaugh) that Fox was 'acting' is simply disgraceful. ("He is an actor, after all") Limbaugh is not exactly known for his political correctness, but even he was forced to apologise for this.

 

[Sureboss]

I don't think there's a problem with it, if they were trying to get sympathy votes through one of their politicians being ill that might worry me.

 

[Swift]

The accusation (made by Rush Limbaugh) that Fox was 'acting' is simply disgraceful. ("He is an actor, after all") Limbaugh is not exactly known for his political correctness, but even he was forced to apologise for this.

What he said was "He's either off his medications or acting." The fact of the matter is that he WAS off his meds! He does that to get that emotional response from the viewers. That's the sick and sad part.

Fox admiting to not taking drugs before a public appearance.

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wmv/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/Video/Fox.asx

Again, I have zero problem with MJF supporting his candidate. This is a free country(last time I checked). But what he did was pure exploitation of his condition AND told half truths about the opposing candidates position on stem cell research. There's the issue I have with MJF himself. The democrats are just weak for exploiting him. Of course, I find exploitation ugly from anyone, especially politicians.

 

[Touring Mars]

It seems there is blame on both sides here - perhaps Fox should have made it clear that he has medication but wasn't on it at the time of the interview. That still doesn't make Limbaugh correct when he accused Fox of 'acting' (he did also actually say 'He is an actor, after all' as well as the quote you cite) The fact is that Parkinson's does do that to you - and that eventually it will kill you whether you dope yourself to the eyeballs on your meds or not.

I don't think Fox is doing anything 'wrong' by deliberately not taking his medication before certain public appearances, because he is trying to show what the disease is really like... if you wanted to highlight what having cancer is like, you wouldn't show someone who is in remission and completely fine at that moment - but I do concede that it should have been made clear to the viewers that that was what they were seeing, because otherwise it could be construed as potentially misleading.

 

[Gabkicks]

It is sad. It's low, it's dirty, and It's shameless.
I say that and I'm in support of stem-cell research.
Just to make sure, I can't remember exactly where they get stem-cells from, but doesn't Bush consider it essentially the same as abortion?

well, relatively speaking, it isn't low for the standards of politics. Its not like Michael J Fox is pretending to have parkinsons' disease. he says he did take his medication... but even if he didnt. he's showing what parkinson's looks like.

 

[ledhed]

Hey its his disease he can use it any way he wants...the same way a guy used his war record and his disability from war or a guy used his status as a married man with 5 kids...Fox's reality is he has Parkinsons and he wants to be cured and he thinks the guys he supports or Girls will give him and others the chance to live a normal life .... So whats the problem ...he didn't take his meds to show the REALITY of his disease ....if it was me I would have done it naked and had a rocket fly out my butt if I thought it would help push people to find a cure.

Even if they are Demoncrats.

 

[Swift]

It seems there is blame on both sides here - perhaps Fox should have made it clear that he has medication but wasn't on it at the time of the interview. That still doesn't make Limbaugh correct when he accused Fox of 'acting' (he did also actually say 'He is an actor, after all' as well as the quote you cite) The fact is that Parkinson's does do that to you - and that eventually it will kill you whether you dope yourself to the eyeballs on your meds or not.

I don't think Fox is doing anything 'wrong' by deliberately not taking his medication before certain public appearances, because he is trying to show what the disease is really like... if you wanted to highlight what having cancer is like, you wouldn't show someone who is in remission and completely fine at that moment - but I do concede that it should have been made clear to the viewers that that was what they were seeing, because otherwise it could be construed as potentially misleading.

Hey its his disease he can use it any way he wants...the same way a guy used his war record and his disability from war or a guy used his status as a married man with 5 kids...Fox's reality is he has Parkinsons and he wants to be cured and he thinks the guys he supports or Girls will give him and others the chance to live a normal life .... So whats the problem ...he didn't take his meds to show the REALITY of his disease ....if it was me I would have done it naked and had a rocket fly out my butt if I thought it would help push people to find a cure.

Even if they are Demoncrats.

You are both saying pretty much the same thing here. But I still think it's very weak. Now, if this would've been a non-partisan fundraising commercial(like for the children in India, etc) No problem! But he specifically used his "victimized" state to promote a specific political agenda. Not to mention that if anyone says, "MJF is lying" it automatically makes those people in support of chronic disease according to the media.

Parkinson's is very rough. But you know what else is rough? Huntington's disease. Not all that different from alzimer's. But you don't hear about that because no famous people have that disease yet. My fiancée's family does though. Can stem cell research help them? It looks very possible. And I'm all for curing all of the genetic diseases that nobody has control over. But parading people in front of a camera to say that "This person is against curing my disease" is just wrong and a lie.

Then there's the whole thing about Embryonic stem cell research being the worst of the current bunch. Causing tumors in experiments while adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells are showing incredible results.

Also, why does someone that's a "victim" get a free pass from the media when they make false statements?

 

[KSaiyu]

Nice post Swift, I agree with everything you just said.

On watching it, it makes me feel that with stem cell research denied by the opposing party this is how you will be for the forseable future as someone with parkinson's - which is untrue.